Some days ago President Obama submitted to Congress his proposal for a five hundred million dollar package designed to finance the actions of the “moderate Syrian opposition,” against the regime of President Bashar Assad. President Obama’s aim in this is unclear, because it doesn’t provide any clue as to precisely who the United States is supposed to finance. The truth is that the camp of the enemies of President Assad is completely dominated by the Jihadists.

There is another rather important and also quite odd moment involving the role of the Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, in the handling of the Syrian crisis. Since the beginning of the turmoil, the Turkish leader has expressed the same attitude as President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the situation in Syria. This concept was deprived of any specificity, because it didn’t go beyond the formula “Assad must go.”

As far as the relationship between the United States and Turkey is concerned, according to the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ankara is amongst the best and staunchest allies of America. On the one hand, Ms. Clinton was so excited about the idyllic relations between Barack Obama and Erdogan’s Turkey that she gave a joyous high five to the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davitogly, during their meeting in Abu Dhabi back in 2011.

On the other hand, in one of his statements Mr. Obama indicated that he considers the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Tayyip Erdogan, as one of the five international leaders he considers to be his best friend.

The most important part of the problem is that while the prime minister of Turkey is playing a shrewd politically correct game with his influential American friend, who hears from him everything he would like to hear, Erdogan’s strategy in Syria is completely different.

The prime minister of Turkey is undoubtedly a hard core Islamist, and a firm supporter of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. During the Syrian conflict Turkey took the side of the Jihadists.

Small wonder then that there was a constant traffic of Islamic terrorists and supplies coming across the long and indefensible Syrian border with Turkey — the silent but effective support of the Erdogan government.

The Jihadists are in complete control as well over the refugee camps for close to a million Syrian refugees uprooted by the war. The unconditional support of Ankara for the Islamic participants in the conflict, has reached the point where ambulances are crossing the border back and forth in order to bring wounded Jihadists to Turkish hospitals for treatment.

Regardless of the magnitude of the hidden, multidimensional assistance for the Islamic enemies of the Syrian government so far the Turkish strategy has turned out to be a failure for Erdogan, who is accustomed in winning all of his battles.

According to one of the polls, 68% of the Turkish participants expressed a negative view of the very idea of any military or financial support to the Jihadists who are fighting the Syrian army.

Facing an extremely important presidential bid scheduled for August 10, Erdogan has decided to turn his Syrian defeat into a victory. Taking advantage of his belonging to the elitist club of one of the five best friends of President Obama, the Turkish leader has evidently managed to convince his most important friend to play rough in Syria.

Considering that the Turkish statesman maintains perfect relations with the Jihadists under the pretext of trying to get rid of the bad leader of Syria, Erdogan hopes to turn the tide of Syrian bloodshed in his favor with the weaponry provided by the generous President of the United States.

In the event that the not so complicated strategy of Mr. Erdogan works out, and President Obama falls into the trap called “a support for the moderate Syrian opposition,” the consequence would have a tremendous negative impact on the national interests of the United States and Israel. Last but not least, the consequences of American assistance for the intensification of the war in Syria will have a devastating effect on the entire region. An interesting question would be: What will happen if the Syrian dream of Mr. Erdogan is about to be turned into reality by Mr. Obama and his faithful Secretary of State, Kerry?

First of all, the next round of the Islamic assault on Syria will produce a new level of devastation and new waves of refugees that will flood into the neighboring countries. Particularly affected will be Jordan which is the next victim on the list of the Jihadists.

The secular Syrian state will disappear, most probably by its inclusion into the rapidly expanding Islamic formation encompassing territories belonging to Syria and Iraq. Such a development will produce a massive genocide of those ethnic and religious groups for which there will be no place in a region completely dominated by the Islamo-totalitarian fanatics. The Alawite, the Kurdish, and the Christian communities will disappear. Then the time will come for the new extension of the Islamic Caliphate of Aby Bakr al-Baghdadi into Jordan and Lebanon, provoking a war with Israel.

The problem is that in case Mr. Obama is able to figure out the essence of the strategy Mr. Erdogan strictly followed for years, then the president is conducting a deliberate policy directed against the national interests of the United States.

On the other hand, if the competence of the President Obama in the area of international politics is somewhat limited, then he has to change his entire body of advisors.

Or, possibly, Mr. Obama considers the secular Syrian regime as a more serious danger to the national security of the United States than the new Jihadist formation that stretches almost to the outskirts of Baghdad?

Most certainly Mr. Obama wouldn’t cover those important issues during his rather irregular press conferences, and if by some miracle he does, most certainly the meaningful questions will remain unanswered. What is far more important is to hope that somebody more competent in international politics than Hillary Clinton or John Kerry would be in a position to explain to the evidently deeply confused Commander in Chief the huge negative consequences if Erdogan’s Syrian design materializes.

The most important thing Mr. Obama must learn is that the crazy idea of wasting half a billion dollars in order to finance the Syria related strategy of present day Turkey, would not serve the national interests of the United States, but rather the Islamic agenda of Mr. Erdogan.

Georgy Gounev teaches and lectures on the ideology and strategy of radical Islam. His book The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon will be published on August 31, 2014 by Rutgers University Press, and is available on Amazon.

Most likely future historians will be amazed by the size and the endurance of the wall surrounding the truth about the disastrous results of the errant strategy applied by American diplomacy in the Middle East.

The first brick in the foundation of this wall was laid personally by the President of the United States, who from the very beginning of his mandate explicitly forbade the use of the term “radical Islam”. Let’s remind ourselves of the simple truth that the name of the biggest threat hanging over the United States is precisely the radical version of the Muslim religion. Consequently, the decision of the President of the United States raises some interesting questions no one has ever tried to answer. Maybe the most important among them is: Why did Mr. Obama decide to impose a ban on the only possible term applicable to the ideology and the strategy of the enemy?

It could be argued that given the circumstances, the president spent part of his childhood in a Muslim country where he attended a Muslim school which provided Mr. Obama with a unique experience and knowledge as far as Islam and the Muslim world is concerned. At least theoretically, it could be assumed, that Mr. Obama entered the White House well familiar with Islam and its extreme variety, and consequently able to deal with the Islamic challenge.

At a practical level, however, the reality turned out to be very different. Mr. Obama’s view seems to be that Islam is just a religion. In other words the Muslim belief system is devoid of any political dimensions except for its use by a relatively insignificant group of “extremists.” The multitude of failures brought about by this approach is enormous. Let’s pay attention to the most important of the disasters.

It was in 2011 when the administration became blinded by the brouhaha around the so-called Arab Spring. Given that the denial of the existence of radical Islam was already a firmly established pattern, the White House and the Department of State failed to recognize the danger represented by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. As a result, in July of 2011, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not only recognized the legitimacy of the largest Islamist organization in Egypt, but also made public the decision of the U.S. Government “to work with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

To a large degree, the victory of the Islamists during the presidential elections was predetermined by the passivity of the White House and the mistaken actions of Clinton’s Department of State. Let’s disperse from the very beginning a possible misunderstanding: there was no need for any form of direct involvement of the American administration in the conduct of the Egyptian elections in 2011, and no one is recommending it for the future either.

What constituted a huge gaffe for President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton was that both of them assured the Muslim Brotherhood of unconditional American financial and military assistance after the electoral victory of the Islamists. This shocking failure of judgment was symbolized in the word “unconditional.” In order to understand the logic of President Obama, we have to go back to his major perception of the Muslim religion. It is worthwhile to follow the practical implementation of Mr. Obama’s concept. To start with, Mr. Obama’s perception of the Muslim religion as a purely spiritual phenomenon is incorrect.

The distinguished scholar of Islam Bernard Lewis offered an excellent description of Wahhabism, which is the extremist variety of Sunni Islam. In his attempt to explain the essence of radical Islam, Dr. Lewis asked his readers to picture a situation where the Ku Klux Klan obtained full control over the oil wealth of Texas. Based on the income derived from the oil, the Klan launched a worldwide propaganda campaign that proclaimed its ideology as the only true version of Christianity. It would be logical then for the Klansmen to accuse the Catholics, Protestants, and the followers of the Greek Orthodox Church of being heretics and apostates from the only true variety of Christianity represented and propagated by the Klan.

This incorrect interpretation of the essence, the purpose, and the strategy of radical Islam by President Obama made inevitable the conduct of a mistaken policy dutifully executed by Department of State under Hillary Clinton, and currently under John Kerry. The same factor determined the disastrous American approach to the crisis ravaging Egypt. For all practical purposes, the U.S. sided with the hard-core Islamist Morsi. The former President of Egypt encouraged by the warmth of the friendship unconditionally offered to him by Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, embarked on a course leading to the establishment of an Islamist dictatorship along the lines of the system that emerged in 1979 in Iran.

What happened next was even worse: the administration that lavished Morsi’s regime with a billion dollars’ worth of financial assistance and military supplies turned a cold shoulder on the Egyptian military who extracted their country from the merciless grip of the Islamists.

There are events in politics when a politician should make his voice heard when the given event affects his principles or beliefs. At the same time, there are facts and situations the leader should keep within his private domain. In some strange way President Obama acts in contrast to those very basic requirements. The world still remembers the blood of the young protesters shed on the streets of Teheran in the aftermath of the rigged elections that brought about the second mandate of President Ahmadinejad in Iran. The majority of the world’s statesmen expressed their condemnation of the Iranian regime and their support of its victims. Regretfully, the White House and the Department of State under Clinton remained silent.

At the same time however, the president spoke about his positive feelings towards the Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan, whom Mr. Obama, according to his own words, counts as one of his five best friends in the realm of politics. Shall we remind the President of the United States of Erdogan’s record? Erdogan is a hard -ore Islamist who supported Morsi, still supports Hamas, crashed the protest demonstrations of the students, and imprisoned a score of Turkish journalists. In addition, the Turkish statesman has an entirely negative attitude toward Israel.

On a different subject: what does President Obama think about Benghazi? There was an intense moment when his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, assumed full responsibility for the calamity that took the lives of four American diplomats. What was the punishment for her role in the murky and bloody affair? Well, she has been enthusiastically pushed forward as a leading candidate for the presidency of the United States…

Georgy Gounev PhD teaches and writes on the ideology and strategy of radical Islam. Among his books”The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon”is to be released in 2014.The book explores the impact of radical Islam on American/Russian relations.

Many years ago when Russia and Ukraine emerged from beneath the rubble of the Soviet Union, the Western experts were trying to outguess the shape of the future political system of Russia. Those assessments turned out to be wrong. The only opinion that survived the test of time was the prediction made by Richard Nixon. What the disgraced President had advised the American policymakers to do was to observe what kind of policy the future leaders of Russia would conduct with regard to Ukraine…

The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, firmly believes that his actions are always correct. At the same time, however, the Russian acquisition of Crimea brought about a rather serious international crisis. So what is the truth behind the dramatic events that shook Russia and Ukraine directly while not leaving the rest of the world indifferent?

Let’s examine at close range President Putin’s explanations, largely supported not only by his powerful propaganda apparatus, but by the majority of Russians as well. In addition to the attitude of the majority of Russians, there is an opinion quite popular around the world. It would be enough to mention in this respect substantial components of the Chinese and Indian media, and the public mood amongst the Christian population of the Balkans.

According to the representatives of a vastly different, but quite a large group, the American bombing of the Serbian capital of Belgrade during the Clinton administration and the proclamation of the independence of Kosovo during President Bush’s mandate violated international law. This opinion holds that the actions of the United States during the Clinton and Bush administrations violated the same principles that Russia stands accused of breaking today.

Before the seizure of the Crimea, Vladimir Putin had the reputation as one of the most effective leaders in the world. According to a large number of polls, he got the highest ratings for leadership. It would be enough to recall events dating back to the late summer of 2013, when American leadership was contemplating a military action against Syria. It was Vladimir Putin who saved President Obama from a tough decision he was desperately trying to avoid by suggesting the elimination of the Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons. It was due to this demarche that the ratings of President Putin went sky high while the ratings of President Obama went precipitously down.

Currently the president of Russia probably thinks that the acquisition of Crimea has elevated his prestige in Russia. As far as the rest of the world is concerned he is very wrong. If Mr. Putin doesn’t reconsider very carefully his next move, the Ukrainian crisis is about to place him on the first step of a downward slide. Vladimir Putin

Let’s focus first our attention on the analysis of the referendum which according to the President of Russia convinced the world of the legitimacy of his actions.

There is some complexity in this issue which deserves additional clarification. Beyond a shadow of doubt, the Russian population of Crimea voted enthusiastically to reunite with the country they feel part of. At the same time however, no one with even a superficial idea about the demography of Crimea will buy Putin’s claim that 95% of the peninsula’s population voted to join Russia. There is a score of rather inconvenient questions for which the pro-Putin propaganda apparatus has no answers.

For instance, how could 95% of the Crimean population have supported the Russian annexation of Crimea, given that 12% of the residents of the region are Tartars who, due to past grievances dating back to the Stalin era, are ferociously opposed to the idea of becoming subjects of Russia? There is another problem as well: How could the Ukrainians who comprise 35% of the Crimean population manage to vote in favor of the Russian occupation of the peninsula?

Not incidentally, the General Assembly of the United Nations refused to recognize the legitimacy of the referendum that on the top of all other irregularities was conducted with lightning speed, without any discussions of possible alternatives.

The president seems not to care. The experts seem to agree that the level of the popularity of Mr. Putin has reached a staggering 71.6%. Even the last Soviet leader, Michael Gorbachev — who was never particularly fond of the present regime — expressed his strong support for the Crimea-related moves of Vladimir Putin.

The powerful support President Putin enjoys in Russia conceals the fact that there are prestigious voices of dissent whose message is designed to issue a strong warning about the dangers lurking in the murky waters of international politics. Those voices of protest are trying to warn their compatriots about the danger stemming from the almost unanimous support for the actions of one single individual.

Boris Yakunin, for instance, who is the most popular writer in Russia today, has already told the Russians that the country is bracing for a sudden and rough awakening in the aftermath of the nationalistic and patriotic delirium. According to Yakuninin, in the long-term (or maybe not so long…) perspective, Russia will face a huge internal crisis that could end up in a revolutionary upheaval having the potential to bury the currently triumphant autocratic regime.

On March 1, the prestigious Russian newspaper Vedomosti published an op-ed entitled “This Has Already Happened.” The author of the rebellious article is one of the most prestigious Russian historians, Andrei Zukov.

His warning one day will be remembered as one of the best proofs for intellectual brilliance and high moral values: “Our politicians are dragging our people into a terrible, horrifying adventure. History tells us we will not be given a free pass. We should not buy this as Germans bought the promises of Goebbels and Hitler.”

A few days later Professor Zubov was fired for “immoral conduct of an employee of a pedagogical institution.” The public outcry forced the leadership of the Moscow Institute of International Relations to reconsider the dismissal of Dr. Zubov.

The fact that a newspaper dared to publish the rebellious article, and that people dared to protest the actions of the government bureaucracy, shows convincingly enough that Putin is not Hitler, and that Russia of 2014 is not Nazi Germany of 1938.

At the same time there is undoubtedly a clear-cut danger stemming from the violation of some of the most important provisions of international law. At the same time however a fact that should not be forgotten is that Russia and its Western rivals are threatened in equal degree by the advancement of radical Islam. We should not overlook the important fact that Jihadism aims to destroy both countries.

Finally, last but not least, Richard Nixon was right — the attitude of the Russian politicians with regard to Ukraine can make or break the international order established in the aftermath of the victory over Adolf Hitler and his Reich.

Georgy Gounev teaches International Relations in Southern California. He is the author of The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon due to be published in late 2014 by Rutgers University publishing house – Transaction Publishers..

At the same time that the Obama administration has decided to provide Egypt with the most sophisticated varieties of American weaponry, mass protests against the increasingly dictatorial regime of Mohamed Morsi reached a magnitude that threatens the very foundations of the Egyptian statehood. This shocking dichotomy raises questions as to why the most important leader in the world and the supreme commander of the most powerful armed force is so confused and so helpless while facing the challenges of radical Islam.

It’s very likely that President Obama’s views of Islam-related problems is based on his childhood experience in Indonesia. Undoubtedly, those impressions have created an image that the majority of Muslims are good people. This is absolutely correct. As far as the radical Islamists are concerned, however, Mr. Obama’s attitude is mistaken. What is even worse is that it impacted in a negative way his strategic thinking and the practical conduct of his policy.

For President Obama, the term “radical Islam” is a kind of taboo — for the first four years of his term, he didn’t master the courage to pronounce it even once. Instead, he prefers to define the adherents of radical Islam simply as “terrorists.” The problem here is that terror is a method used by the enemy but not its name… Given this ignorance or arrogance, it is a small wonder that the president and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were not able to develop an effective strategy towards radical Islam in general and towards Egypt in particular.

Consequently, the United States’ foreign policy regarding a fanatical and dedicated enemy bent on the destruction of everything that makes life worth living has been seriously crippled. Even more, the actions of the current administration are facilitating the growth of the poisonous seeds of radical Islam.

The first ray of hope for an ambitious and hard-core Muslim Brotherhood leader by the name of Mohamed Morsi to assume that his hour had struck emerged when it became clear that the United States has thrown its loyal ally, Hosni Mubarak, under the bus.

In July of 2011 Secretary Hillary Clinton made a statement to the effect that the United States was recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate participant in Egyptian political life. In practice, this meant that the United States was ready to recognize a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt provided that Mohamed Morsi won the election.

Secretary Clinton’s declaration was a fatal mistake. All the Department of State had to do was to issue a declaration making it abundantly clear that the United States would respect the right of the people of Egypt to choose a government of its liking. At the same time however, this statement should have left no doubt that Washington wouldn’t offer any assistance to a tyrannical government that was about to violate the human rights and political freedom of women and minorities. Such an American strategy would have brought a victory to Morsi’s rival, Ahmed Shafiq — a popular and intelligent general with solid secular credentials.

Once in power, Morsi’s very first step was to tighten the knot of the cord that President Obama had placed around his own wrists by making clear his belief in the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Very soon, however, the Gaza conflict broke out. In the middle of the bloody duel between Hamas’ missiles and the Israeli bombings, Morsi sent his prime minister, Hesham Qandi, to Gaza. Qandi gave inspirational and highly provocative speeches encouraging the continuation of Hamas attacks on Israel.

At the same time, the Egyptian President was busy building a completely different image on behalf of President Obama, who had sent his secretary of state to Cairo, all the way from distant Burma. Upon reaching the capital of Egypt, the jet-lagged Secretary of State received Morsi’s assurances that Hamas was ready to stop shooting missiles into Israel…

This was an excellent strategic move by Morsi, bestowing as it did the status of complete master of the situation in Gaza. With his help, the attacks on Israel would be stopped. But if some kind of pressure on the United States and Israel is desired, then the missiles will fly.

Perhaps dizzy from so much brilliance, Morsi committed one very important mistake. Assuming that the ground for the dreamt-of Islamo-totalitarian eternity he had prepared for Egypt was ready, the new President of Egypt rushed to proclaim absolutist power over the country. The new dictator was in such a precious hurry to Islamize Egypt that he immediately imposed a constitution suspiciously similar to the Iranian one.

This decisive step proved to be premature. The young opponents of the authoritarian regime of President Mubarak once again filled Tahrir Square, demanding this time the resignation of the impatient totalitarian by the name of Mohamed Morsi.

An interesting difference emerged between the current demonstrations and the turmoil that brought down President Mubarak. When historic Tahrir Square was filled with angry demonstrators against Mubarak, the Department of State decided to undercut him by proscribing to the embattled statesman any violent response and demanding release of political prisoners. (By the way, one of the released “victims of the repressive regime of Mubarak” was an individual currently detained for his participation in the Benghazi murders.)

Events now enveloping Tahrir Square represent a huge dilemma to the Obama administration. The problem is that the anti-Morsi demonstrations are of such a magnitude that at one point the new dictator was chased out of his palace, which upon his return he transformed into a fortress surrounded with barbed wire and tanks.

Unlike Mubarak, however, Morsi is not about to resign. Knowing full well the vulnerability and the weakness of Obama, he is contemplating all possible means to preserve his dictatorial powers. The delicate spot Obama has placed himself in by not supporting the Egyptian enemies of radical Islam is a dangerous one because it evokes an important question: Is the president about to let down the anti-Morsi demonstrators the way he let down the young Iranians whose blood was shed on the streets of Teheran back in 2009?

Georgy Gounev teaches and lectures on the ideology and strategy of radical Islam in Southern California. He is author of the book entitled “The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon” that explores the international impact of the Islamization of Europe. In addition, other articles by Gounev can be found in the American Thinker, Gatestone and “foraff.org.”

Georgy Gounev – January 30, 2013 – First Published by American Thinker 1/30/2012

Media coverage of the French reaction to the establishment of an Islamic enclave in Mali creates the impression of a limited operation conducted by a small military contingent. The vastness of one of the largest and poorest African countries has helped to reinforce such an impression. What should not be forgotten, however, is that this picture is only the visible part of the mighty iceberg.

The early stages of the process that led to the French intervention in Mali was connected to the appearance of the first Islamic groups in the northern part of the country during the 1990s. The development that brought about the creation of an Islamic enclave in Mali was initiated by the Islamic leftovers from the Libyan and the Algerian civil wars.

The oil-related cash that for decades flowed into Libya produced a wave of immigrants from countries tot he south. The largest majority of black jobseekers were looking for employment at the numerous construction projects of rich but underpopulated Libya.

When the Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi decided to create a mercenary force similar to the French Foreign Legion, immigration issues became more complicated. There were numerous and generally false speculations about the important role played by the black mercenaries in the civil war that had led to the downfall of Qaddafi.

As a matter of fact this role was quite limited. There were only 1,500 black mercenaries, which included hundreds of Mali-based Tuaregs, out of the 76,000 soldiers loyal to the dictator. This situation didn’t save the terrified majority of black immigrants to Libya from the brutal treatment they got from the “rebels.”

The end of Qaddafi rule was greeted enthusiastically by the world media. But what remained hidden for quite some time was the huge arsenal of weapons the dictator had acquired during the long decades of his rule. These weapons ended up primarily in the hands of a motley crowd of Jihadists.

Recently the French military contingent got involved in an intense battle with the Jihadists in northern Mali. The French participants in the battle were impressed by the sophistication of the training and the weapons of their enemies. But there was no cause for amazement, considering that 10,000 shoulder-fired missile launchers possessed by the Kaddafi army ended up in the hands of the radical Islamists.

The Algerian civil war throughout the 1990s was a conflict that still awaits a complete analysis. This long and brutal confrontation was won by the Algerian Army. From time to time, although defeated, the Islamists were able to organize terrorist acts in urban areas and to maintain their presence in the isolated desert areas of Algeria. It was from there that they recently launched an assault on the Amenas gas facility located in the southeastern corner of the country.

The remnants of the GIA, (the French acronym for the Armed Islamic Group, the military forces of the Algerian Islamists), became a component of the Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

For a long time, the strategy of the Algerian government with regard to the challenges presented by radical Islamists was full of contradictions. On the one hand, the Algerian Army and police forces continued harsh wartime policies against detained Islamists. Also Algeria didn’t object to the use of its airspace by the French military forces on their way to Mali.

On the other hand, Algerian leaders, including President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, are not strangers to complicated maneuvers that involve occasional secret contacts with the Jihadists. It was Bouteflika who not so long ago decided to release about 2,000 imprisoned Jihadists in an attempt to let bygones be bygones with the hope that it would pacify the country in the aftermath of a long and bloody conflict.

With this action, Pres. Bouteflika demonstrated an astounding lack of ability to learn from one of the most important lessons of history, the essence of which is simple: like all totalitarians, the Jihadists don’t recognize the existence of a category called generosity or compassion. For them every statesman showing tolerance is stupid, or weak, or both. Small wonder that the released jihadists in Algeria quickly vanished from the city areas in order to emerge as guerilla fighters.

The creation of an Islamic enclave on the territory of northern Mali and the hostage taking in southeastern Algeria were closely connected Jihadist endeavors. Algerians played an important role in the occupied cities of Mali. At the same time, the recent hostage taking was an operation in which 29 out of 40 participants were Tuaregs. Many among them were former black mercenaries in the Qaddafi Army.

The dramatic events that shook part of the African continent that not many people care about could have extremely important consequences in the not-so-distant future.

The limited French military intervention in Mali that precipitated the hostage crisis prevented for the time being the Islamic takeover of Mali. At the same time however, the Islamic influence in the Sahel region, where the poorest African countries are located, continues to grow.

In other words the Jihadists have strong positions and connections in the states that are located between the Arab-populated northern Africa and the rest of the continent. There is an Islamic continuum between the Horn of Africa, with Somalia as the best example, all the way to Mauritania.

If the Islamic offensive in this region continues undisturbed, the next victims of the Islamo-totalitarian assault will be Algeria and Morocco. The same factor will influence and possibly speed up the ongoing Islamization of Egypt , Libya, and Tunisia.

The establishment of an Islamic stronghold on the Mediterranean coast of Africa will represent a direct threat to France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, and will have a tremendous impact on the ongoing process of the Islamization of Europe.

There is a way to prevent these sinister developments that sooner or later will affect the United States. An effective strategy would require a joint effort of an American led NATO-Organization for African Unity (OAU) coalition, which should organize the protection and defense of the continent. The current situation in sub-Saharan Africa provides little assurance that any such steps will be taken.

Georgy Gounev teaches the ideology and strategy of radical Islam in Southern California within the framework of the Emeritus program. He is also the author of The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon, Foreign Policy Challenges, Laguna Woods, CA, 2011. The book explores the international impact of the Islamization of Europe.

Georgy Gounev - First Published by Gatestone Institute – August 2, 2012

To what extent should an Islamic leader be trusted when he proclaims his intention to act in keeping with all the requirements of a democratic political system and to respect the principles of religious and political freedom?

The ability of the American media to ignore a “politically incorrect” event, regardless of its importance, is familiar. One of the best examples is the invitation issued by President Obama to the President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, to pay an official visit to the United States during the September session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The most frequently asked question in the immediate aftermath of the presidential elections in Egypt is: To what extent should an Islamic leader be trusted when he proclaims his intention to act in keeping with all the requirements of a democratic political system? Also, how much should an Islamic leader be trusted when he promises to respect the principles of religious and political freedom?

What, for instance, is the value of the following statement: “Islamic clerics will help lead the Revolution but then they step aside to let others rule”? Or: “Criticism of the Islamic Government will be tolerated.”?

Oops..! Sorry for the mistake! Those were not the words of the newly elected President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi. These encouraging thoughts were expressed by Ayatollah Khomeini on September 25, 1978, just four months before his triumphant return to Teheran.

What Khomeini then did is well known; there is no need to repeat it here. On August 18, 1979, however — less than a year after his pro-democracy statements — the thoughts of the powerful dictator of Iran had acquired a different direction. When he addressed the participants in the demonstrations of some disappointed former young supporters, the angry cleric issued the following warning: “I repeat for the last time: “Abstain from holding meetings, from blaspheming, from public protests. Otherwise I will break your teeth.”

On February 2, 2011, The American Thinker published an article by this author, exploring the similarities and differences between developments in Egypt and Iran. While the mainstream media was elated by what seemed a sunrise of democracy over the Nile, the article stated: “[T]he demonstrations shaking Tehran at the time and Cairo now have a clearly visible violent and Islamic component.” It also emphasized the prominent role the actions of President Obama’s administration were about to play in shaping the future political system of the most important Arab country.

As President-Elect, Mohammed Morsi promised to establish a “civil and democratic state in Egypt.” He also said he would appoint as Vice Presidents both a woman and a Christian, and assured Egyptian journalists that there would be no Islamization of the cultural life of the country. Morsi added, however, that those journalists who had published articles supporting the peace treaty with Israel would not be allowed to practice their profession.

If one again compares the Egyptian developments with the Iranian precedents, Mohamed Morsi currently is using Khomeini’s vocabulary from September of 1978. The question is: What kind of statement will he make if he reaches the degree of power Khomeini was enjoying in August of 1979?

Secretary of State Clinton proudly declared in Cairo that the United States did not have any preferences regarding the participants in the Egyptian elections. Although her announcement followed a well-established pattern of political correctness, at the same time it reflected the completely wrong strategy of the Obama administration. That policy is based on the absurd premise that by exposing Islamic Fundamentalism as the main enemy of democracy and Western civilization, American policymakers are endangering the United States more than are the actions of the Jihadists.

It was this “strategy” that contributed immensely to the electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood. Twenty-Five million out of eighty million Egyptians preferred not to vote at all; the rest of the votes were almost split between Mohamed Morsi and his main rival – General Ahmed Shafik, a close associate of former President Hosni Mubarak.

American diplomacy had a better path to follow. A definite assurance should have been given to the effect that the United States would respect the choice of the Egyptian people. At the same time, if the new Government tried to change Egypt’s political system by imposing an ideology, that discriminated against women and minorities, and that violated its peace treaty with Israel, it should not expect any support from the United States.

One of the many questions Secretary Clinton could have asked President-Elect Morsi was: “If the Brotherhood has so tightly embraced the ideals of political democracy, how is it possible that such a crucial change did not in any way affect the ideology of the organization?”

No one will be surprised that Mohamed Morsi failed to mention to Ms. Clinton that the most essential part of his fiery speech delivered in front of an enthusiastic crowd on May13, 2012 was the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.”

Wouldn’t it be logical to expect that before issuing an invitation to Morsi to visit him at the White House, President Obama would ask his future guest how, if he believes that the country must be subjected to Islamic Law, he intends to defend the secular constitution of Egypt?

If Jihad is the path Morsi wants to follow, then how can President Obama treat him as his guest? It is understandable: Once he contributed to Morsi’s ascension to power, the President has to deal with him on the issues of international politics. This fact does not mean, however, that Mr. Obama should lay down a red carpet for him. A White House reception for Morsi will represent a huge boost to — and an endorsement of — the “gathering storm” of Islamic Fundamentalism. Weren’t the Jihadists the ones who murdered thousands of Americans, and have openly stated that one of their most important goals has always been to destroy the American political system?

If the occupant of the White House after November 2012 does not know how to say the words ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’, America will face tough times ahead not only abroad, but at home as well.

Georgy Gounev, PhD, teaches ‘The Ideology and Strategy of Radical Islam’ and is the author of the book “The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon. The Islamization of Europe and its Impact on the American-Russian Relations,” Foreign Policy Challenges LLC, Laguna Hills, 2011.

The most important international factor that influences the Syrian crisis is the politics of the United States and Russia. In the eyes of the majority of the American observers, the primary factor for the continuing bloodshed in Syria is the diplomatic and military support rendered to Assad’s regime by Russia. Read the rest of this entry »